Topic: There are 78 organs in the human body.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 hours ago #133,982
Person A thinks all 78 are affected by genetics, and can have better/worse performance as a reuslt.
Person B thinks 77 are affected by genetics, and 1 is not.
Person A asks Person B "why this one exception?", and Person B refuses to answer and starts calling Person A names and stops engaging seriously with the conversation.
Who is the smart one here?
Person B thinks 77 are affected by genetics, and 1 is not.
Person A asks Person B "why this one exception?", and Person B refuses to answer and starts calling Person A names and stops engaging seriously with the conversation.
Who is the smart one here?
boof joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 59 seconds later[^] [v] #1,427,546
that's a lot of organs!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,549
Imagine if it was any other organ.
"Oh, I believe in genetics. But not for the spleen. No, I won't explain, I'll write walls of text that have nothing to do with this instead and hope no one notices my beliefs are unfounded"
"Oh, I believe in genetics. But not for the spleen. No, I won't explain, I'll write walls of text that have nothing to do with this instead and hope no one notices my beliefs are unfounded"
boof replied with this 3 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,556
oh do tell how the kidneys differ among the races
I've heard tell that the orientals have six of them
I've heard tell that the orientals have six of them
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours ago, 8 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,557
@previous (boof)
Alright.
Autosomal Recessive Polycystic Kidney Disease is more common among middle eastern and southern asian populations.
Alport Syndrome and Thin Basement Membrane Diseas is found at higher rates in the mediterranean and middle east populations.
Alright.
Autosomal Recessive Polycystic Kidney Disease is more common among middle eastern and southern asian populations.
Alport Syndrome and Thin Basement Membrane Diseas is found at higher rates in the mediterranean and middle east populations.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 2 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,558
@1,427,556 (boof)
OP thinks if people are different then that’s bad because he thinks he’s correct in every way so if anyone is different from him in any way they must be worse than him. And we can’t allow that… for some reason.
None of this shit makes any sense.
OP thinks if people are different then that’s bad because he thinks he’s correct in every way so if anyone is different from him in any way they must be worse than him. And we can’t allow that… for some reason.
None of this shit makes any sense.
Anonymous C double-posted this 3 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,559
It’s not even clear how this is supposed to affect anything. Maybe black people and white people are exactly the same, maybe white people and black people are completely different. I’m black and white. What difference does it make if black people and white people are the same or different?
Anonymous C triple-posted this 3 hours ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,560
Like this literally isn’t even a subject that makes logical sense to care about. You are who you are. Whether you’re the same or different from other people doesn’t change that. It’s a stupid thing to obsess over.
Anonymous C quadruple-posted this 3 hours ago, 42 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,561
Or at least in the case of me as an individual, black people and white people are literally exactly the same since I’m one person.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours ago, 7 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,562
@1,427,558 (C)
> OP thinks if people are different then that’s bad
No, not at all, I think differences develop for a reason. Certain genetic distinctions develop to adapt for local environments. If that didn't happen, we'd have the same type of creature living in very different environments.
> because he thinks he’s correct in every way so if anyone is different from him in any way they must be worse than him.
Disagreement is fine, but people should have justifications for what they believe.
Having justification and evidence for a claim is important. That's not at all the same thing as just being mad people came to a different conclusion.
We've been over that before, but you still can't tell the difference between the two. I've met people with very different belief systems, and they will happily explain why. I wouldn't lob the same criticism at them that I do to you, because you just get mad when you are contradicted and start calling me names and getting passive aggressive.
> None of this shit makes any sense.
It doesn't make sense that people should know why they beleive the things they do??
> OP thinks if people are different then that’s bad
No, not at all, I think differences develop for a reason. Certain genetic distinctions develop to adapt for local environments. If that didn't happen, we'd have the same type of creature living in very different environments.
> because he thinks he’s correct in every way so if anyone is different from him in any way they must be worse than him.
Disagreement is fine, but people should have justifications for what they believe.
Having justification and evidence for a claim is important. That's not at all the same thing as just being mad people came to a different conclusion.
We've been over that before, but you still can't tell the difference between the two. I've met people with very different belief systems, and they will happily explain why. I wouldn't lob the same criticism at them that I do to you, because you just get mad when you are contradicted and start calling me names and getting passive aggressive.
> None of this shit makes any sense.
It doesn't make sense that people should know why they beleive the things they do??
Anonymous C replied with this 3 hours ago, 59 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,563
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,564
@1,427,559 (C)
@1,427,559 (C)
@1,427,561 (C)
Not one of these posts explains why you think the brain is the sole exception to genetics.
@1,427,559 (C)
@1,427,561 (C)
Not one of these posts explains why you think the brain is the sole exception to genetics.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,565
@1,427,563 (C)
I believe all organs are subject to genetics.
That isn't a rejection of environment or culture. Those also play a role.
I believe all organs are subject to genetics.
That isn't a rejection of environment or culture. Those also play a role.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 0 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,566
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,567
@previous (C)Here's the post where you call me stupid for making the claim that the brain is also subject to genetic factors.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 36 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,568
@previous (A)
No, I was just agreeing with you because I saw your stupidity as evidence of your argument.
No, I was just agreeing with you because I saw your stupidity as evidence of your argument.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,569
@previous (C)
You've consistently denied the role of genetics in intelligence, and said IQ isn't real.
Saying that you agree with me just to insult me is clearly a passive aggressive remark.
Why do you need to play dumb if your position is correct?
You've consistently denied the role of genetics in intelligence, and said IQ isn't real.
Saying that you agree with me just to insult me is clearly a passive aggressive remark.
Why do you need to play dumb if your position is correct?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,570
@previous (A)
I’ve never denied the role of genetics in intelligence. I just know that all humans have almost exactly the same genetics.
I’ve never denied the role of genetics in intelligence. I just know that all humans have almost exactly the same genetics.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,571
@previous (C)
Humans and chimps have almost identical genetics if you just look at the percentage different.
Yet chimps will never build cities, write literature, or do most things humans can do.
Even a small change in genetics can impact the intelligence of the creature significantly.
The difference in genetics between Einstein and and a dyslexic is much smaller than the human-chiml gap too.
Humans and chimps have almost identical genetics if you just look at the percentage different.
Yet chimps will never build cities, write literature, or do most things humans can do.
Even a small change in genetics can impact the intelligence of the creature significantly.
The difference in genetics between Einstein and and a dyslexic is much smaller than the human-chiml gap too.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,572
And, this is something that maybe you don’t realize. If you come from a part of the world that’s somewhat homogenous when you see someone of a different race they’ll look really different to you, but that’s because of your own subjective bias. There have been studies on this where for example, Asian people will think half white half Asian people are completely white and white people will think half Asian have white people are completely Asian. If you have a group of people that’s diverse enough, with European, Africans, Arabs, etc. you can get to a point where you start noticing how everybody sort of looks the same.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,573
@1,427,571 (A)
Humans are far more genetically similar to each other than chimpanzees are to other types of chimpanzees, but you probably think all chimpanzees look the same.
Humans are far more genetically similar to each other than chimpanzees are to other types of chimpanzees, but you probably think all chimpanzees look the same.
Anonymous C triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 8 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,574
Now the thing is, if you actually google different types of chimpanzee subspecies, and you start staring at chimpanzees long enough, you’ll start realizing they look different.
With humans, there is only one extant species of humans with only one extant subspecies. We have far less genetic variation, and human genetic variation does not correlate with racial categories based on phenotypes, because racial categories based on phenotypes are subjective. Different cultures have radically different racial categorizations and European racists could never even agree on how many races there are. The modern scientific consensus is that races basically don’t exist.
With humans, there is only one extant species of humans with only one extant subspecies. We have far less genetic variation, and human genetic variation does not correlate with racial categories based on phenotypes, because racial categories based on phenotypes are subjective. Different cultures have radically different racial categorizations and European racists could never even agree on how many races there are. The modern scientific consensus is that races basically don’t exist.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,575
@1,427,572 (C)
How people appear on the outside is irrelevant to whether our brains in the inside are fundamentally the same or highly varied.
This post is irrelevant to the topic.
@1,427,573 (C)
> Humans are far more genetically similar to each other than chimpanzees are to other types of chimpanzees, but you probably think all chimpanzees look the same.
I didn't say otherwise, in fact I said the difference between Einstein and a dyslexic is less than the difference between a human and chimp?
You are acting like I said the exact opposite of what I said.
@previous (C)
Still unrelated to the topic.
How people appear on the outside is irrelevant to whether our brains in the inside are fundamentally the same or highly varied.
This post is irrelevant to the topic.
@1,427,573 (C)
> Humans are far more genetically similar to each other than chimpanzees are to other types of chimpanzees, but you probably think all chimpanzees look the same.
I didn't say otherwise, in fact I said the difference between Einstein and a dyslexic is less than the difference between a human and chimp?
You are acting like I said the exact opposite of what I said.
@previous (C)
Still unrelated to the topic.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,576
@previous (A)
Yeah, I don’t know dude. You’re just desperate to cling to your belief and I have no idea why.
Yeah, I don’t know dude. You’re just desperate to cling to your belief and I have no idea why.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,577
Honestly though, if you actually did go to Oxford and you actually did take anthropology classes, you would know why what you’re saying is dumb as bricks.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,580
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 33 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,581
@1,427,577 (C)
Again, going to insults, but not defending your stance. Basically everything you said here is off-topic or implies I said the exact opposite of what I did.
Again, going to insults, but not defending your stance. Basically everything you said here is off-topic or implies I said the exact opposite of what I did.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 9 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,582
@1,427,580 (A)
You have a belief that different races of people are different in terms of intelligence and there’s some reason why we should care about this.
You have a belief that different races of people are different in terms of intelligence and there’s some reason why we should care about this.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 31 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,583
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,584
@1,427,582 (C)
We could talk about that, but first we'd need to settle this: Is there variation in cognitive ability, based on genetics, at all in humans?
If we can't settle that, then moving on is pointless because you constantly change the subject to avoid admitting you have no good defense of a critical proposition.
So far you've passive aggressively said you believe it, but if you won't seriously and genuinely admit that it's true then how would any progress be made?
We could talk about that, but first we'd need to settle this: Is there variation in cognitive ability, based on genetics, at all in humans?
If we can't settle that, then moving on is pointless because you constantly change the subject to avoid admitting you have no good defense of a critical proposition.
So far you've passive aggressively said you believe it, but if you won't seriously and genuinely admit that it's true then how would any progress be made?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 hours ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,585
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,586
@1,427,583 (C)
I'm not following you on one of your tangents.
Is the brain distinct among the 78 organs, or does it also have better performance and/or disorders that are caused by genetics?
I'm not following you on one of your tangents.
Is the brain distinct among the 78 organs, or does it also have better performance and/or disorders that are caused by genetics?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 33 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,587
@1,427,585 (D)
Another insult, another post that refuses to engage with the proposition.
Smart people can defend their positions, they don't need to avoid engaging.
Another insult, another post that refuses to engage with the proposition.
Smart people can defend their positions, they don't need to avoid engaging.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,588
I’m not even sure why you’re arguing with me, are you trying to convince me or yourself?
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,589
@1,427,585 (D)
> you very clearly havent even graduated high school tho.
@1,427,587 (A)
> Another insult, another post that refuses to engage with the proposition.
>
> Smart people can defend their positions, they don't need to avoid engaging.
Now that’s embarrassing.
> you very clearly havent even graduated high school tho.
@1,427,587 (A)
> Another insult, another post that refuses to engage with the proposition.
>
> Smart people can defend their positions, they don't need to avoid engaging.
Now that’s embarrassing.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,590
@1,427,588 (C)
I'm demonstrating that only one side can take this seriously and defend their position, while one side has no choice but to resort to tangents and insults.
@previous (C)
Why is it embarassing for me to be on the side that can defend their position?
I'm demonstrating that only one side can take this seriously and defend their position, while one side has no choice but to resort to tangents and insults.
@previous (C)
Why is it embarassing for me to be on the side that can defend their position?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,591
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,592
Doth protests too much.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 24 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,593
@1,427,591 (C)
If you want to share, go ahead, but I'm not playing along with your tangents.
Better yet, if you want to explain why the brain is the one exception to this rule, do that.
If you want to share, go ahead, but I'm not playing along with your tangents.
Better yet, if you want to explain why the brain is the one exception to this rule, do that.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,594
@previous (A)
You know what? Since you prefer ignorance, I’m a nice guy, so I’ll just let you have bliss. Nothing happened.
You know what? Since you prefer ignorance, I’m a nice guy, so I’ll just let you have bliss. Nothing happened.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,595
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,596
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,597
Look, I’m a politic person. We each have our point of view. From your perspective the brain isn’t exceptional, from mine it is. We’re each correct about ourselves, so let’s just move on.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 7 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,598
@1,427,596 (C)
Why do you think one side of this can simply defend their view, and the other has to resort to insults?
Young children call each other names, get passive aggressive, and storm off when they have conflicts. They rarely talk things through and analyze the other side's points.
Grown professionals are usually able to stay calm, and talk through disagreements to reach a consensus, even when much more is at stake.
Do you think that pattern can teach us anything?
Why do you think one side of this can simply defend their view, and the other has to resort to insults?
Young children call each other names, get passive aggressive, and storm off when they have conflicts. They rarely talk things through and analyze the other side's points.
Grown professionals are usually able to stay calm, and talk through disagreements to reach a consensus, even when much more is at stake.
Do you think that pattern can teach us anything?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,599
@1,427,597 (C)
> Look, I’m a politic person. We each have our point of view. From your perspective the brain isn’t exceptional, from mine it is. We’re each correct about ourselves, so let’s just move on.
The "Let's agree to disagree" line is a thought-terminating cliche, and those are enployed by the side that can't justify their beliefs.
The side that is correct can just defend their position.
> Look, I’m a politic person. We each have our point of view. From your perspective the brain isn’t exceptional, from mine it is. We’re each correct about ourselves, so let’s just move on.
The "Let's agree to disagree" line is a thought-terminating cliche, and those are enployed by the side that can't justify their beliefs.
The side that is correct can just defend their position.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,600
Anonymous D replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,601
Hey niggy, whys you so retarded?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,602
@1,427,600 (C)
This is another tangent, because we aren't talking about Trump or politics.
The question is, is the brain the sole exception of the 78 organs.
If you can't stay on topic and defend your position, if you feel the need to use insults and distract with random political videos, then that is a clear sign about which side is acting mature and which is not.
This is another tangent, because we aren't talking about Trump or politics.
The question is, is the brain the sole exception of the 78 organs.
If you can't stay on topic and defend your position, if you feel the need to use insults and distract with random political videos, then that is a clear sign about which side is acting mature and which is not.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 13 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,603
@1,427,599 (A)
> The "Let's agree to disagree" line is a thought-terminating cliche, and those are enployed by the side that can't justify their beliefs.
>
> The side that is correct can just defend their position.
Well then let it be known that I was gracious and offered the possibility of coexistence but you declined, so it’s not my fault if I don’t decide to tolerate you.
> The "Let's agree to disagree" line is a thought-terminating cliche, and those are enployed by the side that can't justify their beliefs.
>
> The side that is correct can just defend their position.
Well then let it be known that I was gracious and offered the possibility of coexistence but you declined, so it’s not my fault if I don’t decide to tolerate you.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,604
The only thing you want me to say is that I agree with you. I agree with you. Of course, I’m lying, but I agree with you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,606
@1,427,603 (C)
The ideal is not coexistence of truth and fiction.
The ideal is just truth.
You never defended your idea, then you acted immature, then you offered a stalemate because that seemed better than admitting you lost.
The ideal is not coexistence of truth and fiction.
The ideal is just truth.
You never defended your idea, then you acted immature, then you offered a stalemate because that seemed better than admitting you lost.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,607
@previous (A)
I think everything you say is true and I agree with you. I have never said I disagree with you on anything, so I don’t understand why are you are unsatisfied.
I think everything you say is true and I agree with you. I have never said I disagree with you on anything, so I don’t understand why are you are unsatisfied.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,608
@1,427,604 (C)
I want you to understand how to distinguish truth and fiction.
I can respect people that disagree, but keep the conversation mature and defend their beliefs.
If you still think this is about reaching the same conclusion, then you don't get it.
I want you to understand how to distinguish truth and fiction.
I can respect people that disagree, but keep the conversation mature and defend their beliefs.
If you still think this is about reaching the same conclusion, then you don't get it.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,609
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 38 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,610
@previous (A)
I never capitulated to you, I have always agreed with you. I think you’re incredibly smart and you make good arguments.
I never capitulated to you, I have always agreed with you. I think you’re incredibly smart and you make good arguments.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,611
You have to explain what you want me to say to you or I won’t say it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,612
@1,427,610 (C)
More passive aggressive posts, still no defense of your position.
You never reflect on why this is necessary?
More passive aggressive posts, still no defense of your position.
You never reflect on why this is necessary?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 34 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,613
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,614
@1,427,611 (C)
I want you to show you know the difference between getting emotional and having reasons for your conclusion.
Agreeing with me doesn't show that.
I want you to show you know the difference between getting emotional and having reasons for your conclusion.
Agreeing with me doesn't show that.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,615
@1,427,613 (C)
I want you to show you know the difference between the two.
How do you tell if an idea is correct or incorrect?
You could do that and disagree.
I want you to show you know the difference between the two.
How do you tell if an idea is correct or incorrect?
You could do that and disagree.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,616
@1,427,614 (A)
> I want you to show you know the difference between getting emotional and having reasons for your conclusion.
>
> Agreeing with me doesn't show that.
I understand the difference between getting emotional and having reasons for my conclusions because you explained it to me and I strongly disagree with everything you stand for.
> I want you to show you know the difference between getting emotional and having reasons for your conclusion.
>
> Agreeing with me doesn't show that.
I understand the difference between getting emotional and having reasons for my conclusions because you explained it to me and I strongly disagree with everything you stand for.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 19 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,617
Now are you happy?
Anonymous C triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,618
Like what the fuck do you want me to say? You don’t have any idea.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,619
@1,427,616 (C)
And if you disagree, why is it that you always choose to avoid reason in favor insults, tangents, and making up reasons to shut the conversation down?
Serious question, not some backhanded insult, why do you think it would be bad to approach it dialectically?
And if you disagree, why is it that you always choose to avoid reason in favor insults, tangents, and making up reasons to shut the conversation down?
Serious question, not some backhanded insult, why do you think it would be bad to approach it dialectically?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,620
@1,427,618 (C)
I keep telling you why. You don't seem to know the difference between:
A) agreeing/disagreeing
B) the dialectical process, analyzing arguments, vs avoiding rationalism/empirical defenses.
I keep telling you why. You don't seem to know the difference between:
A) agreeing/disagreeing
B) the dialectical process, analyzing arguments, vs avoiding rationalism/empirical defenses.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 second later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,621
@1,427,619 (A)
I don’t respect you at all and I don’t value anything you have to say. I also don’t think you’re intelligent.
I don’t respect you at all and I don’t value anything you have to say. I also don’t think you’re intelligent.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 43 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,622
@1,427,620 (A)
I completely agree with you! I don’t know those two things and you’ve very smart and know a lot about that. I learned so much from talking with you! I really respect you and think you’re interesting.
I completely agree with you! I don’t know those two things and you’ve very smart and know a lot about that. I learned so much from talking with you! I really respect you and think you’re interesting.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,623
@1,427,621 (C)
Same, but if I'm going to disagree with you I might as well demonstrate why you're wrong.
After all I can, so why claim I can but refuse to prove it?
Same, but if I'm going to disagree with you I might as well demonstrate why you're wrong.
After all I can, so why claim I can but refuse to prove it?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 23 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,624
@1,427,621 (C)
> I don’t respect you at all and I don’t value anything you have to say. I also don’t think you’re intelligent.
@1,427,622 (C)
> I completely agree with you! I don’t know those two things and you’ve very smart and know a lot about that. I learned so much from talking with you! I really respect you and think you’re interesting.
Now the difference between these two statements, is one was a lie and the other I told the truth. You know which one was the truth but you’ll accuse me of being a liar. That’s why you can never be satisfied. Because when I say I agree with you, I’m always lying, and when I say I dislike you and I think you’re stupid, I’m not lying and you know this.
> I don’t respect you at all and I don’t value anything you have to say. I also don’t think you’re intelligent.
@1,427,622 (C)
> I completely agree with you! I don’t know those two things and you’ve very smart and know a lot about that. I learned so much from talking with you! I really respect you and think you’re interesting.
Now the difference between these two statements, is one was a lie and the other I told the truth. You know which one was the truth but you’ll accuse me of being a liar. That’s why you can never be satisfied. Because when I say I agree with you, I’m always lying, and when I say I dislike you and I think you’re stupid, I’m not lying and you know this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,625
@1,427,622 (C)
You're still framing it as if agreement is the issue, when it's not.
If you're still using that framing you clearly don't understand the difference.
I've met people I agree with who have the same problem you do. I've disagreed with people who can and do respond dialectically.
You're still framing it as if agreement is the issue, when it's not.
If you're still using that framing you clearly don't understand the difference.
I've met people I agree with who have the same problem you do. I've disagreed with people who can and do respond dialectically.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,626
So there’s no point in talking with me because if I ever say I agree with you, you will never be satisfied because you’ll always know I’m lying to your face.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 28 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,627
You literally can’t be happy no matter what I say.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 26 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,628
@1,427,624 (C)
I understand that your "agreement" is passive aggressive, and I wouldn't use lying to describe that, it's just immature.
I understand that your "agreement" is passive aggressive, and I wouldn't use lying to describe that, it's just immature.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 33 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,629
@1,427,626 (C)
As I've said multiple times, it's not about agreement, it's about understanding dialectics.
As I've said multiple times, it's not about agreement, it's about understanding dialectics.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,630
@1,427,628 (A)
You shouldn’t be talking to me, because you know you’ll never get what you want from talking to me.
You shouldn’t be talking to me, because you know you’ll never get what you want from talking to me.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 15 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,631
@1,427,627 (C)
I'd be happy if you learned the difference between agreeing/disagreeing and the dialectical/rational process.
I'd be happy if you learned the difference between agreeing/disagreeing and the dialectical/rational process.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 26 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,632
And the reason why you’ll never get what you want from talking with me, is because you don’t know what you want me to say. You have no idea what you want me to say.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,633
@1,427,630 (C)
Is there a reason you keep framing it like agreement, when my actual issue is that you don't distinguish process from outcome?
Is there a reason you keep framing it like agreement, when my actual issue is that you don't distinguish process from outcome?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 11 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,634
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 34 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,635
@1,427,633 (A)
Do you want me to lie or tell the truth? Because there are only two options. I can lie to your face and tell you nice things or I can tell the truth and tell you ugly things. I can’t do anything else.
Do you want me to lie or tell the truth? Because there are only two options. I can lie to your face and tell you nice things or I can tell the truth and tell you ugly things. I can’t do anything else.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 12 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,637
@1,427,632 (C)
I want you to show you know the difference between process (dialectical, rational, w/e) and outcome (whether your conclusion is the same as mine).
Every time you say "I agree! I agree!" you prove you don't know the distinction.
I want you to show you know the difference between process (dialectical, rational, w/e) and outcome (whether your conclusion is the same as mine).
Every time you say "I agree! I agree!" you prove you don't know the distinction.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,638
@1,427,634 (C)
@1,427,635 (C)
Saying you agree misses the point, because that's still outcome, not process.
@1,427,635 (C)
Saying you agree misses the point, because that's still outcome, not process.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 5 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,639
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 29 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,640
You could completely disagree with me and show that you know what rationalism is, I've met many people that do this.
So far you haven't shown it once.
So far you haven't shown it once.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 31 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,641
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 18 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,642
@1,427,639 (C)
That would clearly not be you understanding it.
Saying "I'll agree, just tell me what to say" is still a case of you focusing on outcome not process.
That would clearly not be you understanding it.
Saying "I'll agree, just tell me what to say" is still a case of you focusing on outcome not process.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,643
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,644
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 44 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,645
For example, how many fingers am I holding up?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 46 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,646
Descartes was Catholic for what it's worth. Rationalism was born out of Catholicism.
It's no coincidence Jesus proclaimed the existence of truth whole Pilate questioned the concept.
Why would you choose to be like Pilate rather than Jesus?
It's no coincidence Jesus proclaimed the existence of truth whole Pilate questioned the concept.
Why would you choose to be like Pilate rather than Jesus?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 23 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,647
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,648
@1,427,646 (A)
> Descartes was Catholic for what it's worth. Rationalism was born out of Catholicism.
>
> It's no coincidence Jesus proclaimed the existence of truth whole Pilate questioned the concept.
>
> Why would you choose to be like Pilate rather than Jesus?
This is so pretentious.
> Descartes was Catholic for what it's worth. Rationalism was born out of Catholicism.
>
> It's no coincidence Jesus proclaimed the existence of truth whole Pilate questioned the concept.
>
> Why would you choose to be like Pilate rather than Jesus?
This is so pretentious.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,649
@1,427,645 (C)
That's an empirical question, not a purely rational one.
Kant was correct that you need both.
That's an empirical question, not a purely rational one.
Kant was correct that you need both.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 25 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,650
@1,427,648 (C)
It's pretentious for me to say Jesus was correct?
Can you break down what you mean here?
It's pretentious for me to say Jesus was correct?
Can you break down what you mean here?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,651
@previous (A)
No it’s pretentious that you have a surface level knowledge of western philosophy and think that name dropping western philosophers makes you smart enough to debate topics you know nothing about. It’s pretentious.
No it’s pretentious that you have a surface level knowledge of western philosophy and think that name dropping western philosophers makes you smart enough to debate topics you know nothing about. It’s pretentious.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,652
@previous (C)
Notice that you didn't actually engage with what I said at all, you didn't point out any error or add context or anything.
You just inmediately went to insults and avouded contributing anything to the discussion
This is what I mean, you never approach conversations in a mature way. It's always avoiding the topics and resorting to personal insults.
Notice that you didn't actually engage with what I said at all, you didn't point out any error or add context or anything.
You just inmediately went to insults and avouded contributing anything to the discussion
This is what I mean, you never approach conversations in a mature way. It's always avoiding the topics and resorting to personal insults.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 3 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,653
It’s like you took a philosophy 101 course, never took any other classes, and then decided you were smarter than everybody else.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,654
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,655
@1,427,653 (C)
Again, you aren't contributing to the discussion, you are back to personal insults to avoid engaging with any actual ideas.
If I made a mistake, point it out.
If you can't point out a mistake, that's surely a good sign for my position.
Again, you aren't contributing to the discussion, you are back to personal insults to avoid engaging with any actual ideas.
If I made a mistake, point it out.
If you can't point out a mistake, that's surely a good sign for my position.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 47 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,656
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 49 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,657
@1,427,654 (C)
I repeatedly invite you to say something, and on the rare occasion you do I actually address the content of what you said.
You are making personal insults, and coming up with excuses to not contribute or actually engage with the ideas.
If I really ignored something that's on topic, point it out so I don't get away with it. But you aren't because I haven't.
I repeatedly invite you to say something, and on the rare occasion you do I actually address the content of what you said.
You are making personal insults, and coming up with excuses to not contribute or actually engage with the ideas.
If I really ignored something that's on topic, point it out so I don't get away with it. But you aren't because I haven't.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 23 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,658
@1,427,656 (C)
I keep saying jt because you refuse to engage with the ideas, and always go back to personal insults.
I keep saying jt because you refuse to engage with the ideas, and always go back to personal insults.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 29 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,659
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,660
Anonymous C triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 34 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,661
If you’re not emotional like you say you are, then stop complaining when I insult you and just let me say whatever I want about you since you don’t have feelings.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 33 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,662
The fact that it'a philosophy101 is just more reason it should be fine to bring up.
We should both be able to talk about ideas that are, as you said, very badic philosophy terms.
It's absurd to say I can't use these concepts because they are basic. The more advanced concepts build on them, how can we have a conversation when elementary terms are deemed pretentious by you?
We should both be able to talk about ideas that are, as you said, very badic philosophy terms.
It's absurd to say I can't use these concepts because they are basic. The more advanced concepts build on them, how can we have a conversation when elementary terms are deemed pretentious by you?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 24 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,663
I don’t feel bad about anything I say to you because you keep telling me you’re not emotional and I believe you. You have a thick skin, you can handle it if I say I think you’re not smart, you’re a narcissist, and you’re insecure.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 30 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,664
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,665
@1,427,659 (C)
If you can't engage with the ideas, and need to resort to insults, that's evidence your position is wrong.
I'll always point out when you do that, because I'm here to demonstrate just how incorrect you are.
@1,427,660 (C)
> You don’t have any ideas. You’re an idiot.
I've stated my position many times, you ignore it, and I staye it again so anyone can see what you are doing.
@1,427,661 (C)
I'll point out when you act in a way that demonstrates you are on the wrong side.
If you could do the same you would, but you refuse to engage with my arguments and instead lob personal insults to make it look like you're doing something.
If you can't engage with the ideas, and need to resort to insults, that's evidence your position is wrong.
I'll always point out when you do that, because I'm here to demonstrate just how incorrect you are.
@1,427,660 (C)
> You don’t have any ideas. You’re an idiot.
I've stated my position many times, you ignore it, and I staye it again so anyone can see what you are doing.
@1,427,661 (C)
I'll point out when you act in a way that demonstrates you are on the wrong side.
If you could do the same you would, but you refuse to engage with my arguments and instead lob personal insults to make it look like you're doing something.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 22 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,666
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,667
@1,427,663 (C)
Then prove how dumb I am, and refute my positions.
@1,427,664 (C)
> Well you can’t use those concepts because they’re basic.
That's absurd, you could use this line of reasoning to attack the most obvious and universal ideas out there.
It's like saying someone can't defend the idea of a round earth because trigonometry is taught in middle school (long before PHL101!)
Then prove how dumb I am, and refute my positions.
@1,427,664 (C)
> Well you can’t use those concepts because they’re basic.
That's absurd, you could use this line of reasoning to attack the most obvious and universal ideas out there.
It's like saying someone can't defend the idea of a round earth because trigonometry is taught in middle school (long before PHL101!)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 20 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,668
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 6 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,669
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 15 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,670
Anonymous C triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,671
Anyway, since I’m winning the argument, why do you still try? Is it because your IQ is so low you don’t realize you can never win even after failing over and over again?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 33 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,672
@1,427,669 (C)
@1,427,670 (C)
Can someone defend round-earth with trigonometry, or is that not allowed because trig is basic?
Obviously we know that you can use it, and the fact that we all learn it as kids is more reason to expect that it can be used.
So why is Philisophy 101 not allowed? How is that consistent?
@1,427,670 (C)
Can someone defend round-earth with trigonometry, or is that not allowed because trig is basic?
Obviously we know that you can use it, and the fact that we all learn it as kids is more reason to expect that it can be used.
So why is Philisophy 101 not allowed? How is that consistent?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 25 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,673
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 26 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,674
@1,427,671 (C)
I'm clearly winning because I can give a direct answer to any actual argument you use.
You have to keep coming up with excuses to avoid engaging with what I've said.
I'm clearly winning because I can give a direct answer to any actual argument you use.
You have to keep coming up with excuses to avoid engaging with what I've said.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,675
@previous (A)
You’re not winning because you have no argument, you’re an idiot, and you have admitted that I’m winning multiple times.
You’re not winning because you have no argument, you’re an idiot, and you have admitted that I’m winning multiple times.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 53 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,676
@1,427,673 (C)
Lol, then I guess defending round earth isn't allowed.
It looks like we're at that part of the thread that we always get to, where you have lost so completely you try to play it off as trolling.
I'm sure any readers here can see what happened, so I'm out for the night. Bye bye! 👋
Lol, then I guess defending round earth isn't allowed.
It looks like we're at that part of the thread that we always get to, where you have lost so completely you try to play it off as trolling.
I'm sure any readers here can see what happened, so I'm out for the night. Bye bye! 👋
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 36 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,677
@previous (A)
It’s not allowed, because you already said that the earth is flat, which is why I have won the argument and you decided to quit because you realized that you can’t win.
It’s not allowed, because you already said that the earth is flat, which is why I have won the argument and you decided to quit because you realized that you can’t win.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,678
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,427,680
I feel like anon C won the debate.